Climate change and IMO technical and operational measures for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas from ships

According to a study conducted by the International Maritime organisation (IMO) shipping sector is responsible for 3.3% of the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol calls upon states to pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of GHG from marine bunker fuels working through the IMO. In 2011, 14 years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO has adopted mandatory energy efficiency measures for international shipping which can be treated as the first ever mandatory global GHG reduction instrument for an international industry. The MEPC approved an amendment of Annex VI of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) to introduce a mandatory Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Considering the growth projections of human population and world trade the technical and operational measures may not be able to reduce the amount of GHG emissions from international shipping in a satisfactory level. Therefore, the IMO is considering to introduce market-based mechanisms that may serve two purposes including providing a fiscal incentive for the maritime industry to invest in more energy efficient manner and off-setting of growing ship emissions. Some leading developing countries already voiced their serious reservations on the newly adopted IMO regulations stating that by imposing the same obligation on all countries, irrespective of their economic status, this amendment has rejected the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (the CBDR Principle), which has always been the cornerstone of international climate change law discourses. They also claimed that negotiation for a market based mechanism should not be continued without a clear commitment from the developed counters for promotion of technical co-operation and transfer of technology relating to the improvement of energy efficiency of ships. Against this backdrop, this article explores the challenges for the developing counters in the implementation of already adopted technical and operational measures.

Protecting World Heritage sites from the adverse impacts of climate change : obligations for States Parties to the World Heritage Convention

Through its mandate to protect and preserve places of ‘outstanding universal value’, the World Heritage Convention provides an unlikely yet effective tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. The practical efficacy of the Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses (‘the Strategy’), which represents the World Heritage Committee’s primary response to the threats posed by climate change to World Heritage sites, is undermined by its weak stance on mitigation. This paper argues that the World Heritage Convention imposes stronger obligations on States Parties than those contained in the Strategy, including a duty on States Parties to commit to ‘deep cuts’ in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to ensure the continuing success of the World Heritage Convention States Parties must engage in extensive mitigation strategies without delay.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Kilpailukykyvaltion koululainsäädännön rakentuminen : Suomen eduskunta ja 1990-luvun koulutuspoliittinen käänne

Finnish education policy, educational legislation and the entire education system changed significantly during the 1990s as part of a general restructuring of public administration. There has been a clear divergence from the former tradition of a system of regulation, founded on detailed legislation and the principle of equality. The new governance, which is based more on individual choice, efficiency and evaluation, emphasizes that the development of a high standard of education is a necessity in the light of global competition. This study explores the legislative process regarding education policy in the Finnish Parliament during the 1990s, and highlights in particular how the international discourse on education policies was restructured in the context of Finnish legislation. The research material consists of all the public parliamentary documents relating to education, including government proposals, minutes from the discussions in the chamber and archive material (final protocols, reports and statements) for the Committee for Education and Culture. The discourse on the process of drafting and passing education legislation is modelled on three interrelated policy technologies (market, management and performance), which are understood here as mechanisms connecting general political ideas to normative legislation. The changes in the regulation of education were part of a general public administration reform instigated during the mid 1980s. The research results will prove that during the left-right coalition cabinet of PM Harri Holkeri, new policy technologies affected the parliamentary discourse on education policy. This was particularly influenced by a change in the preconditions for the management of education that was created as a result of the numerous demands to deregulate and delegate decision-making authority to the local and school levels while rendering the whole education system more effective. At the turn of the decade, market-type mechanisms were more indirectly manifested in the forms of individuality and freedom of choice, which were reflected, for example, in proposals to “lower the hurdles” by separating general from vocational secondary education with a view to encouraging students to select courses from other educational establishments, in addition to relaxing the requirements for establishing private schools and abolishing a hundred-year-old strict national catchment-area system. Later, in the course of the 1990s, after the subjects, players, and methods of evaluation had been more precisely defined, evaluation based on performance would result in the active measurement of the attainment of set objectives. In the spring of 1991, from the outset of PM Esko Aho's right-centre coalition cabinet, the education budget suffered cutbacks as a result of a global recession and this influenced the legislative work of, and discourses in, parliament. Representatives of the parties in power regarded the recession solely as an external factor that was remote from the political arena. In their view, the education system should rise to the challenge by ensuring the efficient and innovative use of the resources available and by developing new forms of indicators for evaluating results. Representatives of the opposition opposed the cabinet’s standpoint as a result of the recession, criticized the measures taken by pointing out the harmful effect of constantly cutting the budget and argued that the government had made political capital out of the recession by using it as an opportunity to give more room to market, management and performance technologies within the Finnish education system. Criticism of the new education policy became even stronger during PM Paavo Lipponen's first “rainbow” coalition cabinet with critical views being expressed not only from the opposition but also from representatives within the government. Representatives from the left demanded legislative restrictions and the instigation of measures to relieve the presumed negative effects of market, management and performance in the name of educational equality. The new management by results steering method within the university sector and the introduction of commercial education services in compulsory education were fiercely criticized. The argument over “setting outer limits” including, for example, the demands for more detailed legislation and earmarked state subsidies was characteristic of Parliament’s legislative discourse in the latter part of the 1990s. Keywords: education policy, education legislation, Parliament of Finland

A proposal to change existing virus species names to non-Latinized binomials.

A proposal has been posted on the ICTV website (2011.001aG.N.v1.binomial_sp_names) to replace virus species names by non-Latinized binomial names consisting of the current italicized species name with the terminal word "virus" replaced by the italicized and non-capitalized genus name to which the species belongs. If implemented, the current italicized species name Measles virus, for instance, would become Measles morbillivirus while the current virus name measles virus and its abbreviation MeV would remain unchanged. The rationale for the proposed change is presented.

Virus species polemics: 14 senior virologists oppose a proposed change to the ICTV definition of virus species

The Executive Committee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has recently decided to modify the current definition of virus species (Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature Rule 3.21) and will soon ask the full ICTV membership (189 voting members) to ratify the proposed controversial change. In this discussion paper, 14 senior virologists, including six Life members of the ICTV, compare the present and proposed new definition and recommend that the existing definition of virus species should be retained. Since the pros and cons of the proposal posted on the ICTV website are not widely consulted, the arguments are summarized here in order to reach a wider audience.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

PICES-GLOBEC International Program on Climate Change and Carrying Capacity

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Introduction Goals and objectives of the workshop Organizing committee, participants, sponsors and venue Workshop activity NEMURO.FISH COUPLED WITH A POPULATION DYNAMICS MODEL (SAURY) Introduction One cohort case with no reproduction Two (overlapping) cohort scenario with no reproduction Two-cohort case with no reproduction and body size-dependent mortality Two-cohort case with reproduction and KL-dependent mortality Conclusions and future perspectives LAGRANGIAN MODEL OF NEMURO.FISH Tasks and members Description of model and preliminary results Future tasks COUPLING NEMURO TO HERRING BIOENERGETICS Overview Details of the NEMURO_Herring model Example simulation of NEMURO_Herring Future plans REFERENCES APPENDICES Workshop participants Workshop schedule Lagrangian model (FORTRAN program) (55 page document)

PICES-GLOBEC International Program on Climate Change and Carrying Capacity: Report of the 1999 MONITOR and REX Workshops, and the 2000 MODEL Workshop on Lower Trophic Level Modelling

Table of Contents [pdf, 0.11 Mb] Executive Summary [pdf, 0.07 Mb] MODEL Task Team Workshop Report Final Report of the International Workshop to Develop a Prototype Lower Trophic Level Ecosystem Model for Comparison of Different Marine Ecosystems in the North Pacific [pdf, 11.64 Mb] Report of the 1999 MONITOR Task Team Workshop [pdf, 0.32 Mb] Report of the 1999 REX Task Team Workshop Herring and Euphausiid population dynamics Douglas E. Hay and Bruce McCarter Spatial, temporal and life-stage variation in herring diets in British Columbia [pdf, 0.10 Mb] Augustus J. Paul and J. M. Paul Over winter changes in herring from Prince William Sound, Alaska [pdf, 0.08 Mb] N. G. Chupisheva Qualitative texture characteristic of herring (Clupea pallasi pallasi) pre-larvae developed from the natural and artificial spawning-grounds in Severnaya Bay (Peter the Great Bay) [pdf, 0.07 Mb] Gordon A. McFarlane, Richard J. Beamish and Jake SchweigertPacific herring: Common factors have opposite impacts in adjacent ecosystems [pdf, 0.15 Mb] Tokimasa Kobayashi, Keizou Yabuki, Masayoshi Sasaki and Jun-Ichi Kodama Long-term fluctuation of the catch of Pacific herring in Northern Japan [pdf, 0.39 Mb] Jacqueline M. O’Connell Holocene fish remains from Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, Canada [pdf, 0.40 Mb] Elsa R. Ivshina and Irina Y. Bragina On relationship between crustacean zooplankton (Euphausiidae and Copepods) and Sakhalin-Hokkaido herring (Tatar Strait, Sea of Japan) [pdf, 0.14 Mb] Stein Kaartvbeedt Fish predation on krill and krill antipredator behaviour [pdf, 0.08 Mb] Nikolai I. Naumenko Euphausiids and western Bering Sea herring feeding [pdf, 0.07 Mb] David M. Checkley, Jr. Interactions Between Fish and Euphausiids and Potential Relations to Climate and Recruitment [pdf, 0.08 Mb] Vladimir I. Radchenko and Elena P. Dulepova Shall we expect the Korf-Karaginsky herring migrations into the offshore western Bering Sea? [pdf, 0.75 Mb] Young Shil Kang Euphausiids in the Korean waters and its relationship with major fish resources [pdf, 0.29 Mb] William T. Peterson, Leah Feinberg and Julie Keister Ecological Zonation of euphausiids off central Oregon [pdf, 0.11 Mb] Scott M. Rumsey Environmentally forced variability in larval development and stage-structure: Implications for the recruitment of Euphausia pacifica (Hansen) in the Southern California Bight [pdf, 3.26 Mb] Scott M. Rumsey Inverse modelling of developmental parameters in Euphausia pacifica: The relative importance of spawning history and environmental forcing to larval stage-frequency distributions [pdf, 98.79 Mb] Michio J. Kishi, Hitoshi Motono & Kohji Asahi An ecosystem model with zooplankton vertical migration focused on Oyashio region [pdf, 33.32 Mb] PICES-GLOBEC Implementation Panel on Climate Change and Carrying Capacity Program Executive Committee and Task Team List [pdf, 0.05 Mb] (Document pdf contains 142 pages)

Workshop on climate change and salmon production, Vancouver, March 26-27, 1998: technical report

The Workshop on Climate Change and Salmon Production was held in Vancouver, Canada, 26-27 March 1998. The Workshop was organized and sponsored by the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). Each Party to the Commission designated one scientist to the Workshop Steering Committee. Each member of the Steering Committee chaired one half-day session of the Workshop. All necessary arrangements were made by the NPAFC Secretariat in cooperation with the Steering Committee and the Canadian Party to the Commission. (PDF contains 60 pages) Over 70 scientists, industry representatives and fisheries officials attended the Workshop. There were 20 presentations of scientific papers followed by the discussion sessions. Extended abstracts are included in this Technical Report, which also contains opening address by the Chairman of the Steering Committee and short review of the Workshop by the Coordinator. The material presented in the Technical Report has not been peer reviewed and does not necessarily reflect the views of either the NPAFC or the Parties. The material has been edited by the technical editor for clarity and publication purposes only. Items in this Report should not be cited except as personal communication and with the author's permission.

Adaptation of coastal communities in the Philippines to the impacts climate change

The Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (Quedancor) of the Philippine Department of Agriculture has the critical responsibility of providing and improving credit assistance to fishers, it also has the task of helping its beneficiaries meet the repayment obligations of their loans. One reason for defaults can be attributed to the devastating impact of natural calamities. Schemes in place are still insufficient to help safeguard lending programs and operations from non-repayment of loans due to production losses and damages to personal properties.(PDF contains 5 pages) Natural calamities include the uncertainties and vagaries of weather and climate that bring about typhoons, floods, and drought; earthquakes; volcanic eruption as well as pests and diseases that affect the productivity of fisheries. When natural calamities occur, small fishers are unable to pay their loans from Quedancor, moreover they have difficulty renewing their loan applications from Quedancor or accessing credit from other sources. Failure to access credit could disable them to continue venture on fishing activities and could eventually jeopardize the welfare of their entire household. The inability of creditors to pay their loans and meet their obligations also impair, to a large extent, the financial operation and viability of the lending institutions. Risk management schemes currently employed include price stabilization measures, targeted relief` to typhoons and drought victims, and crop insurance systems, to name a few. Some of these schemes are becoming very expensive to implement. Moreover, they fail to enable fishers regain sufficient resources so that they may continue production.

South Lancashire Fisheries Advisory Committee 10th January, 1979

This is the report from the South Lancashire Fisheries Advisory Committee meeting, which was held on the 10th January, 1979. It covers information on the change of fishing policy at Worthington Reservoirs and a brief note about angling on Stocks Reservoir. The section on the report by the area fisheries officer on fishing activities includes river conditions and fishing for salmon and coarse fish on the Ribble and Hodder, migratory fish movements recorded at Waddow Weir, Winckley Hall and Locks Weir and an update on Langcliffe Hatchery. Also included are stocking numbers of brown trout added to the Ribble and the numbers of coarse fish added to various water courses. The Fisheries Advisory Committee was part of the Regional Water Authorities, in this case the North West Water Authority. This preceded the Environment Agency which came into existence in 1996.